MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
“If the final bill is passed by establishment Republicans and House Democrats and does not include a balanced budget amendment as a requirement, it will be completely unacceptable and will be seen as a violation of the mandate that the tea party and likeminded people gave Republicans in 2010,” said Ryan Hecker, the leader of a crowd-sourced tea party effort called the Contract from America.
“The tea party didn’t help elect Republicans because they liked Republicans. They elected Republicans to give them a second chance. And if they go moderate on this, then they have ruined their second chance, and there will be a real effort to replace them with those who will stand up for economic conservative values,” said Hecker, who helped conservative House Republicans rally support for the amendment.
Comments
I really do wish somebody would put these flaming ass holes out of our misery.
by cmaukonen on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:34pm
But seriously, I have already read in a number of places that the RNC intends for redistrict (gerrymander) a number of their districts to get rid of them entirely of have them face strong democratic opposition.
The RNC is no amused.
by cmaukonen on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:44pm
That would suggest there's still someone with a ounce of intelligence still at the controls. Question is ... redistricting takes place at the state level and it just so happens for the past 7 months those very same GOPer controlled legislature have pulled a Bachmann - they've gone bat-shit-fucking-crazy. So what's the chances the RNC has any clout in getting their way at the local level?
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:18am
What I can't understand is there are approximately 88 tea-baggers in the House - give or take a couple. There's about 190 Democrats which leaves roughly a few bodies over 150 for the rest of the GOPers. Those +/-88 tea-baggers represents only 20% of the governing body. That also means they represent only 20% of the entire population. Last I checked, 20% is not a majority or anywhere near close to one. So why is everyone giving these guys so much clout at the expense of the majority of the population? After all, from 2001 to 2006, the GOPer's controlled both House and Senate with bare majorities and they never gave Democrats a seat at the table ... they rammed thru whatever legislation they wanted with 51 votes. It's also why the deficit was run up by to the tune of $6 trillion without any revenue increases either.
It's enough to make me sit out the next election simply because you either elect someone who promises to screw the pooch o\r one who enjoys watching the pooch get screwed.
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:33am
The GOP and its RW media branch manufactured a narrative of an independent, nonpartisan, grassroots social movement when what the "Tea Party" really was was just a top-down mirage driven by the pro-corporate establishment hard right of the previously discredited GOP that needed to be rebranded. The GOP was able to pull this off because they have strong institutional capacity built up over decades and are often able to drive the narrative most of the rest of the media gloms onto. The MSM largely went along with this narrative. The opposition has, with the exception of a few weeks in the spring relating to the events in Madison, been unable to generate a counter-narrative of any strength.
Then the President super-empowered the GOP's hard right ("Tea Party") by legitimizing their terrorist tactics and negotiating with them while retreating, instead of standing up to them or maneuvering them into destroying themselves, as Clinton did with the Gingrich Congress on his budget fights. It may well be the case that he has no possibility of being able to do this at this point, having shown himself to be a pushover and, increasingly, a non-leader in the eyes of much of the public.
And, of course, a public that is too economically illiterate, too passive, too unorganized, and too easily fooled is the essential precondition for all of this.
Thus, the train wreck.
Understanding what has happened may be a necessary first step towards turning things around.
It might be that one useful thing that could be done would be for commentators and bloggers to stop using the term "Tea Party", as though it is something different from the Republican radical right wing.
Instead of using the phrase "Tea Party", which connotes something distinct and independent from the unpopular Republican party, why not use a phrase like the "radical Republican right-wing" or "far right Republicans" or "the Republican far-right"? Name, accurately, the folks who are pushing us off the cliff. In other words, don't play along with their efforts to rebrand their trash, but counter it instead. Make it clear to the public who is pushing this destructive agenda.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:49pm
One reason why the "Tea Party" is used is because a lot of the citizen groups, which is not quite the top-down mirage you think it is, think of themselves as Tea Party folks or are sympathetic to the agenda they believe the Tea Party organizations are pushing.
If a group of lefties formed the "Green Party" and started collectively impacting Democratic elections, they wouldn't to be just referred to as "far left Democrats" or the "radical Democratic left-wing." They would want to be referred to as the Green Party.
And given how the Tea Party politicians in the House basically refused to listen to Boehner and the "establishment" Republicans, there is some truth to the fact that while they are part of the Republican party, they are to some degree an independent sub-group of it.
Like you said, understanding what happened is a necessary step forward. There are definitely right wing corporate and power interests which are supporting the Tea Party groups and organizations. But whether it was the brain child of the right wing elites in the beginning, it has caught on the imagination of many of citizens who lean far right in their ideology.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:03pm
I'll repeat what I wrote a few days back, that I think the main difference is one of timelines: how far, how fast to proceed with spending cuts? The radical GOP right is pushing the envelope to go farther, faster, whereas the "Establishment" GOP "wing" does not disagree with the far-right's agenda on cutting domestic spending. It just fears going too far, too fast and risking a discrediting backlash.
The GOP's task is to make this internal tension work as a good cop, bad cop dynamic that pushes the agenda in the direction they want it to go in, but without reaching a tipping point that triggers a major setback. They can do this with the more Establishment GOP members accepting somewhat less severe Democratic surrenders, particularly if enough Democrats in the House vote yes on the deal to enable the far-right members who want to vote "no" to do so, which will bouy the far right's go-fast supporters. If enough House Dems vote yes today to enable large numbers of far-right GOP caucus members to make the "purity" no vote, the House Dems will have greatly helped the GOP in its effort to avoid a nasty, durable fissure. Will the House Dems give them that gift? If the House Dems were all to vote no today, that might or might not lead to more division on the GOP side--but the chances of that happening are surely greater if the House Dems go that route.
So, no, I don't see these two groups (there are actually more than 2 groups, representing several factions) as disagreeing fundamentally on big things and broad direction, only strategy or tactics, meaning primarily pace of desired change. Disagreements on strategy or tactics, as Democrats well know from fierce debates on our side, can generate a lot of passion and heat and even divisiveness. They have to be managed by the party leaders or a party can blow up or split apart.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:20pm
So yes they are all part of the Republican party, and yes they can parsed into two distinct groups in regards to their view on the pace of change. And they could also be parsed into other groupings, as well. As with all groupings, such as the Progressive Caucus or Tea Party, it is both a description of how the politicians identify themselves and a possible description on how they might act on particular policies and legislation. Those in the Progressive Caucus are still Democrats, but they see themselves as having a distinct agenda and approach from those others in the Democratic Party.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:37pm
Right. So, to go back to my point, why not deny them what they want, which is a label suggesting they are something different from what they are--the far right of the Republican party, which is a very low popularity brand?
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:41pm